PURPOSE: To estimate patient dose and personnel exposure from phantom measurements during computed tomographic (CT) fluoroscopy, to use the estimates to provide users with dose information, and to recommend methods to reduce exposure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surface dose was estimated on a CT dosimetric phantom by using thermoluminescent dosimetric (TLD)and CT pencil chamber measurements. Scatter exposure was estimated from scattered radiation measured at distances of 10 cm to 1 m from the phantom. Scatter exposures measured with and without placement of a lead drape on the phantom surface adjacent to the scanning plane were compared.
RESULTS: Phantom surface dose rates ranged from 2.3 to 10.4 mGy/sec. Scattered exposure rates for a commonly used CT fluoroscopic technique (120 kVp, 50 mA, 10-mm section thickness) were 27 and 1.2 μGy/sec at 10 cm and 1 m, respectively, from the phantom. Lead drapes reduced the scattered exposure by approximately 71% and 14% at distances of 10 and 60 cm from the scanning plane, respectively.
CONCLUSION: High exposures to patients and personnel may occur during CT fluoroscopy–guided interventions.Radiation exposure to patients and personnel may be reduced by modifying CT scanning techniques and by limiting fluoroscopic time. In addition, scatter exposure to personnel may be substantially reduced by placing a lead drape adjacent to the scanning plane.
- 1 Haaga JR, Alfidi RJ. Precise biopsy localization by computed tomography. Radiology 1976; 118:603-607. Link, Google Scholar
- 2 Mueller PR, van Sonnenberg E. Interventional radiology in the chest and abdomen. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1364-1374. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 3 Katada K, Kato R, Anno H, et al. Guidance with real-time CT fluoroscopy: early clinical experience. Radiology 1996; 200:851-856. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 Kato R, Katada K, Anno H, Suzuki S, Ida Y, Koga S. Radiation dosimetry at CT fluoroscopy: physician's hand dose and development of needle holders. Radiology 1996; 201:576-578. Link, Google Scholar
- 5 Meyer CA, White CS, Wu J, Futterer SF, Templeton PA. Real-time CT fluoroscopy: usefulness in thoracic drainage. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:1097-1101. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 6 Silverman SG, Tuncali K, Adams DF, Nawfel R, Zou KH, Judy PF. CT Fluoroscopy–guided abdominal interventions: techniques, results, and radiation exposure. Radiology 1999; 212:673-681. Link, Google Scholar
- 7 Shope TB. Regulations and recommendations relevant to interventional radiology. In: Balter S, Shope T, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in physics—physical and technical aspects of angiography and interventional radiology. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 195-205. Google Scholar
- 8 Wagner LK, Eifel PJ, Geise RA. Potential biological effects following high x-ray dose interventional procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1994; 5:71-84. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 9 Federal Register 481 (1990) (codified at 21 CFR §1020.33).Food and drugs: performance standards for ionizing radiation emitting products—computed tomography (CT) equipment. Google Scholar
- 10 Specification and acceptance testing of computed tomography scanners New York, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1993; 52-55AAPM report; no. 39.. Google Scholar
- 11 Rothenberg LN, Pentlow KS. CT dose assessment. In: Seibert JA, Barnes GT, Gould RG, eds. Specification, acceptance testing, and quality control of diagnostic x-ray imaging equipment. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1994; 899-936Medical physics monograph; no. 20.. Google Scholar
- 12 Spokas JJ. Dose descriptors for computed tomography. Med Phys 1982; 9:288-292. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 13 Suzuki A, Suzuki MN. Use of a pencil-shaped ionization chamber for measurement of exposure resulting from a computed tomography scan. Med Phys 1978; 5:536-539. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 14 Atherton JV, Huda W. CT doses in cylindrical phantoms. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40:891-911. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 15 Huda W. Is energy imparted a good measure of the radiation risk associated with CT examinations?. Phys Med Biol 1984; 29:1137-1142. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 16 Jansen JM, Geleijns J, Zweers D, Schultz FW, Zoetelief J. Calculation of computed tomography dose index to effective dose conversion factors based on measurement of the dose profile along the fan shaped beam. Br J Radiol 1996; 69:33-41. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 17 Geleijns J, Van Unnik JG, Zoetelief J, Zweers D, Broerse JJ. Comparison of two methods for assessing patient dose from computed tomography. Br J Radiol 1994; 67:360-365. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 18 Faulkner K, Moores BM. Radiation dose and somatic risk from computed tomography. Acta Radiol 1987; 28:483-488. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 19 Wagner LK, Archer BR, Zeck OF. Conceptus dose from two state-of-the-art CT scanners. Radiology 1986; 159:787-792. Link, Google Scholar
- 20 Mini RL, Vock P, Mury R, Schneeberger PP. Radiation exposure of patients who undergo CT of the trunk. Radiology 1995; 195:557-562. Link, Google Scholar
- 21 Gkanatsios NA, Huda W, Peters KR, Freeman JA. Evaluation of an on-line patient exposure meter in neuroradiology. Radiology 1997; 203:837-842. Link, Google Scholar
- 22 Hwang E, Gaxiola E, Vlietstra RE, Brenner A, Ebersole D, Browne K. Real-time measurement of skin radiation during cardiac catheterization. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1998; 43:367-370. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 23 Moore RJ. Imaging principles of cardiac angiography Rockville, Md: Aspen, 1990; 221-225. Google Scholar
- 24 Renaud L. A 5-y follow-up of the radiation exposure to in-room personnel during cardiac catheterization. Health Phys 1992; 62:10-15. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 25 Ramsdale ML, Walker WJ, Horton PW. Extremity doses during interventional radiology. Clin Radiol 1990; 41:34-36. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 26 Watson LE, Riggs MW, Bourland PD. Radiation exposure during cardiology fellowship training. Health Phys 1997; 73:690-693. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar